Review: The Museum of Innocence

Orhan Pamuk is famous. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature.
This is what I had in my head when I started reading Museum of Innocence. The book is the story of a man's obsession with a girl. OP is clearly a good writer and I must say the translation was excellent; at no point did I feel like I was reading a book that wasn't originally written in English. But man, the book drags on!
I think what OP forgets is that I (the reader) am not in love with Fusun. There's 4 pages of "sometimes we would stand by the window, sometimes we would eat brinjals, sometimes i would leave late, sometimes we would go out.." not 1, not 2, not even 3 but 4 whole pages of this! in tiny miniscule print! Reading that bit really solves the mystery of the size of the book.
The story itself has no real mystery and an entirely predictable plot. The first part of the book is...scandalous. The second half is just obsessive. On some level, I could relate to it. I've been lonely and stalkery. I have that magpie-like habit of collecting objects and reliving memories through them. Despite this relatable-ness, at no point in the story do you feel like something important is happening. You're always just hoping that something important will happen and when the action finally arrives, it's over before you know it.
[In one Subhash Ghai moment, OP himself makes a guest appearance in the book. That was funny. ]
The book is well-written and while I wouldn't recommend it, I wouldn't tell you not to read it either. I think OP is a good writer. All he needs is a little perspective. If he would just concentrate on the right parts, and reduce the pages by half, it could make for a really nice story.

What do you do in your head?

Chini used to say she outlines objects in her head (artist)
Mansi used to outline objects and try to do it using a single line, without breaking the line (artistic and competitive tendencies)
I try to imagine what different people would do in my shoes (self-centered psychologist)

What do you do in your head?

Soundtrack: Stars- Personals

I spent a lazy Sunday morning in Saket today, simultaneously eating and reading brunch. Except, I wasn't really reading Brunch. I just said that because it sounded clever. I was actually reading Nisha Susan's article in Tehelka's new special issue on love across borders. All the while I was reading it I kept thinking "How can people reveal such personal issues in a national magazine? Don't they know it that 110,000 (wiki-verified) people are reading about their lives?"
But I guess that's exactly what made it a good story. If you took out the personal bits, there woudn't be a story at all.

That's one of the things that holds me back from writing/speaking. I have few lifestories and opinions to begin with and I'm reluctant to share the ones I have. Even seemingly frivolous things like my choice of music, my friends, my favourite food.. Everyone probably knows I spend atleast a third of my waking hours on the internet but ask my friends what I do online and they'll all be stumped. What do I like to watch on TV? What are the things I value in life? What do I think about most often? What is the one thing I'm working towards? and they wouldn't be able to answer. I'm not sure even I know the answers to those questions.

[There was more to this post but I decided its too personal to be on a blog and took it out.]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Jack Johnson!

What if I never get work? At this rate, its definitely possible. I'll just lounge around for a year, then get married. Or I'll change my belief system. Maybe it'll change itself. Grrr, I'm rambling. Today is not the day to be whining.

Do not, under any circumstances, watch Love Aaj Kal. If you read a good review of the film, you can safely assume that the reviewer was paid to praise it, and handsomely so. If you're bored, go eat out, meet old friends, rediscover the city's rich heritage. Heck, sitting at home and staring at your feet is a better way to pass time.
Awful movie. What were they thinking? What were they trying to show? I am a kid of this generation and I couldn't identify with any of the emotions in the movie! (But then I am a bit of an aunty on the inside).
I went in with super-low expectations. I kept giving it the benefit of doubt thinking that it will get better. And it did for about two minutes post-interval. Then downhill again.
Why does Saif Ali Khan have a double role? Try as he might, he did not fool anyone into thinking he could act (like a sardar). Deepika Padukone's acting seemed okay compared to Saif Ali's but that's only because the bar was set so low in the first place.
First Luck, now this. I don't think I'm going to be watching any movies in the theatre anytime soon.
Anyway, if you do happen to see it (I can't imagine why you would but...), I suggest you watch 'Mean Girls' ASAP afterwards to restore your faith in cinema.

This post has been issued in public interest

Once upon a time there was a little elephant named Ole. One day Ole got in a car accident and severed his left leg. When his mother saw him she screamed and dragged him to the doctor. Ole carried the detached limb with him. His mother asked the surgeon, "Doctor, will you be able to put his leg back?". The doctor said, "Don't worry, ma'am. Elephants always re-member."